Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12031 Page 1 of
`225
`
`Exhibit C
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12032 Page 2 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM (lead case);
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM (consolidated)
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WI-LAN, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AND RELATED
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF MARK R. LANNING
`REGARDING INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS.
`8,457,145, 8,462,723, 8,462,761, AND 8,615,020
`
`Dated: February 15, 2018
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 393
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12033 Page 3 of
`225
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................2
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED IN FORMING OPINION ..........................................4
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Legal Standards for Prior Art ..............................................................................4
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation .........................................................................5
`
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ........................................................................6
`
`Legal Standards for Indefiniteness.......................................................................9
`
`Legal Standards for Written Description .............................................................9
`
`V.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND............................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`The 3GPP Family of Cellular Standards ............................................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`First Generation (1G) Cellular Systems ................................................. 11
`
`Second Generation (2G) Cellular Systems ............................................. 11
`
`The 2.5G GSM Cellular System ............................................................ 12
`
`The UMTS Third Generation (3G) Cellular System ............................... 14
`
`The Fourth Generation (4G) LTE Cellular Systems ............................... 15
`
`B.
`
`The WiMAX (IEEE 802.16) Standards ............................................................. 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Fixed WiMAX is Significantly Different Than Mobile WiMAX ........... 16
`
`Mobile WiMAX is Significantly Different Than LTE ............................ 21
`
`Mobile WiMAX and LTE Competed for Adoption ................................ 22
`
`The Cellular Industry Chose LTE Over Mobile WiMAX ....................... 24
`
`C.
`
`The VoLTE Specification ................................................................................. 25
`
`VI.
`
`STATE OF THE ART .................................................................................................. 26
`
`1.
`
`Background Prior Art from Qualcomm .................................................. 28
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE BANDWIDTH PATENTS ........................................................ 34
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Bandwidth Patents Are Based On Fixed WiMAX ...................................... 35
`
`Prosecution Histories of the Bandwidth Patents ................................................. 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The ’145 Patent’s Prosecution History ................................................... 40
`
`The ’723 Patent’s Prosecution History ................................................... 41
`
`The ’761 Patent’s Prosecution History ................................................... 42
`
`The ’020 Patent’s Prosecution History ................................................... 44
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 394
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12034 Page 4 of
`225
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) ................................................... 45
`
`The Bandwidth Patents Asserted Claims ........................................................... 46
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`VIII. THE BANDWIDTH PATENTS’ PRIORITY DATES .................................................. 46
`
`A.
`
`The ’518 Application Does Not Provide Written Description Support for
`the Bandwidth Patents’ Asserted Claims ........................................................... 47
`
`B.
`
`The Bandwidth Patents’ Earliest Effective Filing Date ...................................... 50
`
`IX.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................... 51
`
`X.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................................ 53
`
`XI.
`
`ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................................... 53
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,327,254 to Chuah (“Chuah”) ................................................. 54
`
`“Scheduling and Quality of Service in the General Packet Radio Service”
`by Jonathan Sau and Chris Scholefield (“Sau”) ................................................. 58
`
`Ensemble’s April 26, 2000 proposal to an IEEE 802.16 Working Group
`(the “MAC Proposal”)....................................................................................... 62
`
`1.
`
`The MAC Proposal is a Printed Publication ........................................... 62
`
`D.
`
`Ensemble’s “Fiberless” Product ........................................................................ 65
`
`1.
`
`The ’761 Patent’s Dependent Claim 6 and the Fiberless Product ............ 68
`
`E.
`
`Additional Obviousness Analysis ...................................................................... 69
`
`XII.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ................................ 72
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Unexpected Results Achieved by the Alleged Inventions .................................. 73
`
`Skepticism by Experts ....................................................................................... 73
`
`A Long Felt but Unmet Need in the Prior Art that was Satisfied by the
`Alleged Invention.............................................................................................. 74
`
`Failure of Others to Find a Solution to a Long Felt Need ................................... 74
`
`Deliberate Copying of the Alleged Invention..................................................... 75
`
`Commercial Success of Processes Covered by the Patent .................................. 76
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Wi-LAN’s Fiberless Product ................................................................. 77
`
`IEEE 802.16 Standards .......................................................................... 78
`
`LTE Standards ....................................................................................... 80
`
`Apple iPhones ....................................................................................... 81
`
`Licensing of the Patents by Others .................................................................... 82
`
`Praise of the Alleged Invention by Others of Skill in the Art ............................. 83
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 395
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12035 Page 5 of
`225
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`INDEFINITENESS (’145 PATENT) ............................................................................ 85
`
`
`
`XIII.
`
`XIV. LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION (’761 PATENT) .............................................. 86
`
`XV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 88
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 396
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12036 Page 6 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) as an expert in this case. I am
`
`being compensated at my normal hourly rate of $550 per hour plus reasonable expenses. No part
`
`of my compensation is dependent upon the outcome of this case or any issue in it. I am working
`
`as a private consultant on this matter and the opinions presented here are my own.
`
`2.
`
`I have prepared this report at the request of Apple and its counsel. This report
`
`provides my opinions regarding invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,145 (the “’145 patent”), U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,462,723 (the “’723 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,462,761 (the “’761 patent”), and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,615,020 (the “’020 patent”) (collectively the “Bandwidth Patents”).
`
`3.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge and experience in
`
`wireless communications, hardware, software, and on the documents and information described
`
`below. I may also review other materials throughout this case, including any other documents or
`
`testimony that may emerge in this case. Those materials may affect my opinions in this matter.
`
`4.
`
`I reserve the right to modify and supplement my analysis and conclusions set
`
`forth in this report based upon any additional fact discovery performed by the parties or in
`
`response to any reports by Wi-LAN’s experts. I also reserve the right to modify and supplement
`
`my analysis and conclusions set forth in this report based upon any change to any of the
`
`applicable legal standards explained to me by Apple’s counsel.
`
`5.
`
`At trial, I may rely on visual aids and/or analogies concerning elements of the
`
`Bandwidth Patents or other aspects of my opinions or the material in this report. In connection
`
`with my anticipated testimony in this case, I may use as exhibits various documents produced in
`
`this case that refer or relate to the matters discussed in this report. I have not yet selected the
`
`particular exhibits that might be used. In addition, I may create or assist in the creation of certain
`
`demonstrative evidence to assist me in testifying.
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 397
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12037 Page 7 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I have attached as Exhibit 1 to this report a current copy of my curriculum vitae
`
`(“CV”), which I incorporate here by reference.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently the president of two consulting companies: Telecom Architects,
`
`Inc. and Reticle Consulting, LLC. Each of these companies provides professional consulting
`
`services and custom software development for one or more particular technical areas. Telecom
`
`Architects was established in 1999 to provide specialized consulting services to fixed and
`
`wireless telecom service providers and their equipment suppliers. Reticle Consulting was
`
`created in 2009 to provide specialized consulting services for forensic software analysis and
`
`software source code comparison for software misappropriation cases.
`
`8.
`
`I have over 35 years of experience in a wide variety of communication
`
`technologies, including cellular networks and their components (e.g., base stations, mobile
`
`switching centers, and handsets), and advanced cellular network-based services (e.g., Short
`
`Message Service (“SMS”), Enhanced Message Service (“EMS”), Multimedia Message Service
`
`(“MMS”), Public Switched Telephone Network (“PSTN”) networks, advanced subscriber
`
`services that use Intelligent Networking (“IN”) network components, and various signaling
`
`protocols (e.g., Signaling System 7 (“SS7”) and Integrated Services Digital Networks (“ISDN”)).
`
`9.
`
`In 1983, I began working at Digital Switch Corporation (“DSC”) as a hardware
`
`and software development engineer. I was later promoted to a software development manager
`
`responsible for developing multiple layers of communication protocols and a file transfer
`
`protocol used on DSC’s switches. I later worked on the team responsible for converting DSC’s
`
`PSTN telephone switch into a Mobile Switching Center (“MSC”) for Motorola to sell as a part of
`
`their cellular product offering in the U.S. and many other countries.
`
`10.
`
`In 1991, I began working as a consultant to Motorola for its “SuperCell” base
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 398
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12038 Page 8 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`station product, and as a consultant to British Telecom on its current analog cellular network and
`
`its planned Global System for Mobile Communications (“GSM”) network. My work as a
`
`consultant evolved over the years into many different cellular network and equipment design and
`
`implementation projects.
`
`11.
`
`Since 1995, I have also provided second generation (2G) and third generation
`
`(3G) Code Division Multiple Access (“CDMA”) network architecture, equipment design, and
`
`implementation consulting services to companies such as Sprint, Nextel, and Nokia. This
`
`experience has included working with multiple cellular phone suppliers to define the
`
`functionality and implementation for cellular phones with a wide range of features. These
`
`cellular phones ranged from basic models that had only small alphanumeric displays and
`
`keypads to advanced smartphone models that included touch-sensitive display screens and many
`
`features and applications found in laptop computers.
`
`12.
`
`I received a B.S. in Computer Science from Southern Methodist University in
`
`1983. I have been a visiting lecturer at SMU on various data and voice telecommunications
`
`subjects.
`
`13.
`
`I have testified as an expert in many cases involving wireless communications, as
`
`listed in my CV. I also have testified as an expert in cases involving LTE. I have also provided
`
`expert opinions and expert testimony regarding other patents in the Bandwidth Patents’ family,
`
`such as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,027,298 and 8,249,014. I provided those opinions and testimony in
`
`the Wi-LAN v. Ericsson case.
`
`14.
`
`A detailed list of my other qualifications is included in my CV, which I
`
`incorporate here by reference.
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the Bandwidth Patents and their prosecution file histories. I am
`
`familiar with the subject matter of the Bandwidth Patents, which is within the scope of my
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 399
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12039 Page 9 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`education and professional experience. Based on at least my background, including over thirty-
`
`five years of experience communication technologies, I am familiar with the issues and
`
`technology relating to wireless communications. I also have an understanding of what a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in 1999-2001 was and how that person would understand the
`
`terminology used in the Bandwidth Patents.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED IN FORMING OPINION
`
`16.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have considered, in addition to my knowledge and
`
`experience noted above, the documents and materials listed in Exhibit 2 to this report. Although
`
`I have attempted to make the list of materials in Exhibit 2 as complete as possible, it may not be
`
`a completely exhaustive list of materials I have considered during the course of this litigation.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`17.
`
`Legal Standards for Prior Art
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior art before
`
`it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an asserted
`
`patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the asserted patent. I
`
`further understand that a printed publication, such as an article published in a magazine or trade
`
`publication, qualifies as prior art to an asserted patent if the date of publication is prior to the
`
`invention of the asserted patent.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent also qualifies as prior art to an asserted
`
`patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before the application date of the
`
`asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as an article published in a
`
`magazine or trade publication, constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs
`
`more than one year before the application date of the asserted patent.
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 400
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12040 Page 10 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent or published patent application qualifies as prior
`
`art to the asserted patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United Stated before the
`
`invention of the asserted patent.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that systems and products, such as software, and non-patent printed
`
`publications, such as books, may also qualify as prior art. I understand that a printed publication,
`
`such as a book, qualifies as prior art at least if its publication pre-dates the invention of the
`
`asserted patent or if its publication pre-dates the earliest effective filing date of the asserted
`
`patent by more than one year. I understand that a system or product, such as software, qualifies
`
`as prior art at least if it was known or used by others in this country before the invention of the
`
`asserted patent or if it was in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the
`
`earliest effective filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that, for certain prior art references, a patentee may attempt to show
`
`that the claimed invention was conceived prior to the publication date of the prior art reference in
`
`an effort to overcome the prior art reference.
`
`B.
`
`23.
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can be used to
`
`invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly construed, the
`
`second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a comparison of the properly
`
`construed claim language to the prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim, and thus
`
`renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed in that prior art reference,
`
`either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
`26.
`
`I understand that anticipation must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 401
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12041 Page 11 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`C.
`
`27.
`
`Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a reference point
`
`from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point prevents
`
`one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the consideration of
`
`various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the
`
`existence of secondary considerations such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved
`
`needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a combination of
`
`multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art references themselves may provide a
`
`suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but other times the nexus linking two or more prior
`
`art references is simple common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes
`
`that market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the marketplace.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations should guide a
`
`proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 402
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12042 Page 12 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`purposes. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a
`
`problem will often be able to fit together the teachings of multiple publications. I understand
`
`that obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the circumstances.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious merely by
`
`showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when there is a design need or
`
`market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or
`
`her technical grasp because the result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill
`
`and common sense.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. When a
`
`work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can
`
`implement a predictable variation, the patent claim is likely obvious.
`
`35.
`
`In sum, I understand that prior art teachings are properly combined where a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and knowledge reflected in the prior
`
`art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the
`
`combination of elements recited in the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references
`
`themselves, or any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention,
`
`can provide a reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`36.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis focuses on what
`
`was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not just the patentee. Accordingly,
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 403
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12043 Page 13 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`I understand that any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention
`
`and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
`
`claimed.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that a proposed obviousness combination does not need to be the
`
`preferred, or most desirable, combination available, in order to render a claim obvious. Instead,
`
`there must be something that suggests the desirability of the propose combination, not
`
`necessarily something that suggests that the proposed combination is the most desirable
`
`combination available.
`
`38.
`
`Similarly, I understand that for purposes of obviousness, when a motivating
`
`benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, that does not nullify the proposed obviousness
`
`combination or modification. Likewise, a proposed obviousness combination does not fail
`
`merely because it may be inferior to other systems used for the same use.
`
`39.
`
`I also understand that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from
`
`multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements between the
`
`multiple references. Likewise, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
`
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Instead, the test
`
`is whether a claim is rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference, without the
`
`need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not found explicitly or
`
`inherently in the reference can be supplied by the knowledge or common sense of one of skill in
`
`the art.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that in analyzing the question of obviousness, one may consider what
`
`are called secondary considerations of non-obviousness. I understand that secondary indicia of
`
`non-obviousness may include: (1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 404
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12044 Page 14 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`the invention of the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others skilled in the
`
`art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate copying of the invention; (7)
`
`failure of others to find a solution to the long felt need; and (8) skepticism by experts. I further
`
`understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary
`
`consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`42.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such secondary
`
`considerations and the invention.
`
`43.
`
`D.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that obviousness must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`Legal Standards for Indefiniteness
`
`I understand that a patent claim is indefinite if it, read in light of the specification
`
`and the prosecution history, fails to inform persons of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable
`
`certainty about the scope of the invention. I understand that the purpose of this requirement is to
`
`provide clear notice of what is claimed by the patent, and to provide objective boundaries for
`
`those of skill in the art as to the scope of the invention, as well as to apprise the public of what is
`
`not claimed.
`
`E.
`
`45.
`
`Legal Standards for Written Description
`
`I understand that, in order to satisfy the written description requirement, a patent
`
`must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor(s) actually
`
`possessed the invention as claimed. I understand that the purpose of the requirement is to ensure
`
`that the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s
`
`contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.
`
`46.
`
`I further understand that a claim lacks “written description” support if the patent
`
`specification fails to adequately describe all elements of the claim such that one of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 405
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12045 Page 15 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`in the art in reading the patent would determine that the inventor possessed the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that to satisfy the written description requirement, a specification
`
`must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented
`
`what is claimed. I further understand that the test for sufficiency is whether the specification’s
`
`disclosure reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the
`
`claimed subject matter as of the filing date (or as of another date in question). I understand that
`
`“possession” means possession as shown in the disclosure, and requires an objective inquiry into
`
`the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`also understand that one shows that one is in possession of the invention by describing the
`
`invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which merely makes it obvious. I understand
`
`that one does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas,
`
`etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. I further understand that the specification does not
`
`need to describe the subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims, but it must
`
`nonetheless contain a description of the claimed subject matter.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that the written description requirement is a separate requirement
`
`than the enablement requirement, which requires a patentee to disclose an invention with
`
`sufficient detail such that a person of skill in the art could carry out the invention without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`V.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`49.
`
`systems.
`
`A.
`
`50.
`
`The following sections provide a high level description of the evolution of cellular
`
`The 3GPP Family of Cellular Standards
`
`The figure below shows how one family of cellular standards, the 3GPP family of
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 406
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12046 Page 16 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`cellular standards, has evolved, beginning with the GSM standard that was initially introduced in
`
`the early 1990s. Much of the functionality and concepts that Wi-LAN is accusing of
`
`infringement arise from the GSM and GPRS (packet data) standards that were created and used
`
`by millions of users long before the filing dates of the Bandwidth Patents.
`
`
`3GPP Release Timeline1
`
`
`
`
`
`51.
`
`The right side of the arrow in the figure below represents that the Third
`
`Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is now working on the creation of specifications for
`
`future releases of LTE-Advanced network standards. In general, the 3GPP organization is
`
`responsible for coordinating the creation and publication of the specifications for each new
`
`release and preserving the specifications associated with the previous releases for each type of
`
`network.
`
`1.
`
`First Generation (1G) Cellular Systems
`
`52.
`
`The first generation of cellular networks in the United States was based on analog
`
`technology referred to as Advanced Mobile Phone Service (AMPS), and began commercial
`
`service in the late 1970s in Newark, New Jersey and Chicago, Illinois using car mounted cellular
`
`phones.
`
`2.
`
`Second Generation (2G) Cellular Systems
`
`53.
`
`The cellular systems operating in the U.S. and Europe based on the 1G cellular
`
`
`1 http://www.5gamericas.org/en/resources/technology-education/3gpp-technology-evolution/
`
`
`
`Ex. C
`
`P. 407
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 304-6 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.12047 Page 17 of
`225
`CONTAINS APPLE AND WI-LAN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`standards were a large success but had many limitations (e.g., limited capacity, authentication,
`
`and authorization). Second generation (2G) cellular systems were built to address these
`
`limitations and replace the 1G cellular systems. These 2G replacement cellular systems were
`
`based on one of two different 2G standards. One of these standards is referred to as Global
`
`System for Mobile Communications (GSM).
`
`54.
`
`The GSM standard was created in multiple phases (releases) so that the equipment
`
`and